umask under MSWIN

[zdm]

From perldoc:

If umask(2) is not implemented on your system and you are trying
to restrict access for *yourself* (i.e., "(EXPR & 0700) > 0"),
raises an exception. If umask(2) is not implemented and you are
not trying to restrict access for yourself, returns "undef".

So, under MSWIN 'undef' is a legal value, not an error, and autodie shouldn't die.

[nthykier]

I recommend a removal of umask from the list of builtins that autodie protects. @pjf : Comments to this? If not, I will prepare a branch for removing umask as an autodie (and Fatal) protected function.

Rationale: Reading the umask documentation and playing a bit with it, it seems umask always returns a defined value regardless of input on Linux. I suspect the only case it does return undef is on systems without umask (and only in the conditions quoted above from perldoc). If this case is not to be considered a failure, then there is nothing left for autodie/Fatal to do.

[pjf]

I concur. It sounds like at best autodie does nothing, and at worst it make things worse.

Pinging @rjbs since autodie periodically makes its way into core, but I doubt this would cause any problems.

[nthykier]

For the record, if we are going to remove umask, we should probably bundle the "kill" (issue #47) and the "fileno" (CPAN RT#75199) as well.

[rjbs]

I have no reaction whatsoever to the suggested umask change. So I think it's fine. :)

[nthykier]

@rjbs: Ok, thanks for commenting. :)
@pjf: Ok, I have made a suggested patch for it in nthykier@859f8de216f634b433d51b190e4230a15d89840f that I will consider merging into master. As mentioned earlier, I think we should bundle this with a fix for issue #47 and "fileno" (CPAN RT#75199). I will look into making patches for those as well.